From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove some write_register_bytes occurences from i386-tdep.c
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D5FDD69.7000102@ges.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208181718.g7IHIrg6029437@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
> This replaces two write_register_bytes invocations with
> write_register_gen. The remaining occurences are in principle
> legitimate calls to write_register_bytes, since the intent *is* a
> partial update of a register. Of course I can "open code" these calls
> if that's desirable.
>
> Checked in.
>
> Mark
>
> Index: ChangeLog
> from Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
> * i386-tdep.c (i386_do_pop_frame, i386_store_return_value): Call
> write_register_gen instead of write_register_bytes.
Hmm, [change-request bug report] pop_frame and store_return_value are
going to need the same treatment as was given to extract_return_value()
-- add a regcache parameter so that the registers can be directly
written to the register cache. This reduces the reliance on a single
global register cache.
As for write_register_bytes() can it be avoided? I've just posted
``regcache_cooked_write_with_offset_hack(). But I don't think that hack
is right here. Perhaphs a single register read - modify - write
function is needed?
Andrew
> Index: i386-tdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/i386-tdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.81
> diff -u -p -r1.81 i386-tdep.c
> --- i386-tdep.c 17 Aug 2002 11:39:38 -0000 1.81
> +++ i386-tdep.c 18 Aug 2002 17:15:10 -0000
> @@ -833,8 +833,7 @@ i386_do_pop_frame (struct frame_info *fr
> if (addr)
> {
> read_memory (addr, regbuf, REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (regnum));
> - write_register_bytes (REGISTER_BYTE (regnum), regbuf,
> - REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (regnum));
> + write_register_gen (regnum, regbuf);
> }
> }
> write_register (FP_REGNUM, read_memory_integer (fp, 4));
> @@ -1003,8 +1002,7 @@ i386_store_return_value (struct type *ty
> not exactly how it would happen on the target itself, but
> it is the best we can do. */
> convert_typed_floating (valbuf, type, buf, builtin_type_i387_ext);
> - write_register_bytes (REGISTER_BYTE (FP0_REGNUM), buf,
> - FPU_REG_RAW_SIZE);
> + write_register_gen (FP0_REGNUM, buf);
>
> /* Set the top of the floating-point register stack to 7. The
> actual value doesn't really matter, but 7 is what a normal
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-18 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-18 10:18 Mark Kettenis
2002-08-18 10:46 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2002-08-18 13:08 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-08-18 13:19 ` Mark Kettenis
2002-08-18 13:35 ` [PATCH] regcache raw read/write partial; Was: " Andrew Cagney
2002-08-18 17:38 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3D5FDD69.7000102@ges.redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@ges.redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox